On November 11, 2012, Bishop Bernard Fellay celebrated Mass in the Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris. During a strong, clear sermon, he reviewed these “last few months of sufferings, troubles and anguish in our Society”, declared that we were “at the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974” and asked “where Rome saw continuity in the Second Vatican Council? In Assisi? In the kissing of the Koran? Where? What lessons should we learn from these internal sufferings and the Roman contradictions?”

(...)

I would like to address very, very briefly the last few months, which have caused quite a lot of sufferings, so as to derive several lessons from them; and also in order to be able to find our way again, if necessary. You know that these troubled times—I am speaking of course about our relations with Rome, and about what led to reactions in our Society, and one of their painful consequences, the loss of one of our bishops—are not inconsequential! I am anxious to explain and to confirm here that the problem of our relations with Rome is not the cause of that departure. It was the occasion for it, the result of a problem that has existed for a much, much longer time. A problem of internal discipline within the Society, which finally manifested itself in a sort of open rebellion against authority, under a false pretext, let us say.

(...)

We have reached an impasse, but we will continue our fight.

My dear brethren, this is the situation. And this is why it is obvious that since June—we announced it at the ordination ceremony—matters are at a standstill [bloquées]. It is a return to ground zero. We are at exactly the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre in the years 1975, 1974. And yet, we continue our fight. We do not abandon the idea of winning the Church back some time, of conquering the Church again for Tradition. Tradition is HER treasure, the Church’s treasure. Well, then, we will continue, while waiting for the happy day... it will come, but when? We know nothing about it. Certainly we will see. That is the Good Lord’s secret. The day will come when the cockle [weeds] will be uprooted, this evil that makes the Church suffer. The crisis that we are going through is probably the most horrible that the Church has ever endured. A crisis in which we see bishops, cardinals even, who no longer lead souls to Heaven, who bless the roads to hell. Who no longer warn souls about the dangers that they encounter here on earth. Who no longer remember the goal of their existence... the goal is God, it is going to Heaven. And who forget that there are not thirty-six ways of going there. It is the path of repentance, the path of renunciation. Not everything is allowed. We have the Good Lord’s Commandments. And if someone does not want to observe them, he is preparing for hell. How many times do we hear these words from the lips of a bishop? How many bishops probably have never pronounced them? We know modern seminarians who arrived at the end of their seminary training and told us: “We never heard anyone say that at the seminary”! And yet this is the direct consequence of sin.

...

And even if He hides, if He intensifies the trial, it makes no difference: He is the absolute Master of all things. He is capable of saving us all in the current situation of the Church as well as in the best of times. And this mystery goes so far, my dear brethren, that this power, this force of sanctity, of sanctification, still dwells today in this Church that we see on earth. If we have faith, it is in this Church; if we receive the grace of Baptism down to the last of the Sacraments, it is within and through this Church. This Church which is not an idea, which is real, which is before us, which we call the Roman Catholic Church, the Church with her Pope, with her bishops, who can also have moments of weakness—I almost said “be weak”—that makes no difference: the Good Lord does not allow His Church to fall. But it is up to us not to let ourselves be troubled... since the Good Lord is helping us, all is well!

(...)

This council tried to harmonize itself with the world. It brought the world into the Church, and so now we have disaster. And all these reforms that were made on the basis of the council, were made by the authorities for this purpose. Today, they talk to us about continuity, but where is it? In Assisi? In the kissing of the Koran? In the suppression of the Catholic States? Where is that continuity? And therefore we continue quite simply, quite simply, my dear brethren, without changing anything, until the moment when the Good Lord is willing, as He does... That does not mean that we must remain inactive, of course, every day it is necessary... we have this duty to win souls. And we know very well that THE solution will come from the Good Lord and we can even say THROUGH the Blessed Virgin. We can say this, it is something quite obvious in our times, indicated by these beautiful, magnificent apparitions, Our Lady of La Salette, Our Lady of Fatima, which herald this painful, terrible era. Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist, Rome will lose the faith... that is what was said at La Salette. The Church will be eclipsed. These are not trivial sayings. One truly has the impression that this is what we are experiencing now.

...You see, this is the problem that we have with Rome in our discussions. We tell them: there is a problem and this problem manifestly comes from the council and its aftermath. And they reply:

That is impossible. No, there are no problems. There cannot be any problems because the Church possesses the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the Church can never do anything bad. It is not possible. And therefore the council must be good. By necessity. And therefore what you say has no validity. There is some abuse here or there, but that does not matter. The New Mass? That was made by the Church. The Church is aided. It is necessarily good, and you do not have the right to say that it is bad.

That is what we are confronted with. And we answer:

We accept the faith down to the smallest iota, including faith in the Church and in her privileges and in the assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, we accept the reality, which is quite true also. We are far from denying the reality. And we know very well that there is no contradiction between these two things. There will surely be an explanation someday even though today there is not.

We must not panic. It is terrifying, yes, and so we must take refuge all the more in the Blessed Virgin, close to Her Immaculate Heart. This is the message of Fatima: God wants to give to the world this devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This was not in vain!

Let us ask in all our prayers, at every Mass, this grace of fidelity, so as not to let go of anything, whatever the cost. And that the Good Lord may protect and guide us to Heaven.

Amen.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:09 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

The bishop says that the loss of one of the bishops (i.e., Bishop Williamson) was due, not to the negotiations with the Vatican, but, rather, to an internal disciplinary problem that has been brewing for a long time. While on the surface this may be accurate, I am confused over what this disciplinary problem has been.

I have been observing Bishop Williamson for a long time, at least since the time he was transferred from Argentina to England. If the negotiations were not the proximate cause of his "disciplinary problem", what was? Why has Bishop Fellay desired the Bishop Williamson be "shut up in a monastery" and completely removed from the public for years? I am confused over all of this.

Edited to add: What, precisely, authority does the head of a religious fraternity have over various members? My understanding was that the original intent of the Society was that its members would generally be secular priests working in their dioceses and not a religious order that worked in various dioceses.

Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:11 pm

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

TKGS,

Some of Bishop Williamson's public letters when he was in the USA were clearly political documents aimed across the pond. That was ten years ago or more. I commented on that at the time, it was manifest. The central theme was that the Fraternity was not divinely guaranteed to stay the course, and if and when it failed, it would be time to abandon it. If he was saying this publicly, you can easily imagine the conversations he was having privately. Whether one takes his side or not on that point, it remains a fact that he was saying, "My way or the highway."

Bishops Tissier and de Galarreta are as against a reconciliation with Modernists as Williamson, yet they recognise that the danger has passed. Why does Bishop Williamson fail to recognise this fact? Why does he not welcome the clear signs that there will be no compromise?

He declared for the whole world to read many months ago, in equivalent terms, that he would or could not work in obedience to Bishop Fellay. His current status takes him at his word.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:52 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Thanks John. At the time of the consecrations, I did not even know tradition or the SSPX existed. When Bishop Williamson was in the U.S., I was vaguely aware that there was some sort of "radical traditional" group called the SSPX. I really became aware of the Bishop Williamson only when he was ordered to move to England. Most of my historical knowledge concerning the SSPX has been from the Society's own writings and from individuals such as you who were alive, aware, and active at the time. I have stopped paying much attention to most people's historical accounts (including those published by the Society) because, too often, people pick and choose which events to retell in order to bolster their current positions on many matters. I've noted that your website is one of the few sources that tell the story of the SSPX and the "evolution" of thought as the Archbishop acted and reacted to the situation on the ground as it was. Certainly, the SSPX of the 1980s cannot be judged in light of what we have experienced through 2012, yet this is the common historical view.

I am not an "enthusiastic supporter" of Bishop Williamson, nor do I really trust Bishop Fellay. Both of these men, I think, can be a danger as they dogmatically adhere to the idea that the heretic in Rome is the ruler of the Church who, nonetheless, can be ignored at every turn. Something about that idea bothers me.

In any event, I would still like to know what I asked in the prior post:

What, precisely, authority does the head of a religious fraternity have over various members? My understanding was that the original intent of the Society was that its members would generally be secular priests working in their dioceses and not a religious order that worked in various dioceses.

Thanks

Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:04 pm

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

TKGS wrote:

What, precisely, authority does the head of a religious fraternity have over various members? My understanding was that the original intent of the Society was that its members would generally be secular priests working in their dioceses and not a religious order that worked in various dioceses.

Well, there are two parts to that question. Taking the second one first, the exact nature of the organisation is disputed to some degree even amongst its members, in that it is a congregation or association of priests with simple but not solemn vows, and common life. Therefore those members who feel the attraction of the religious life tend to exaggerate the "religious" character of the Fraternity, and those who would have been secular priests in other circumstances tend to minimise that side of things.

One thing is clear, they are not the equivalent of secular priests, since they have the common life (i.e. living together and chanting the office in common).

Canonically, the status of the Fraternity is disputed. My view, without having a strong opinion, is that it has no canonical status at all, since it was granted an experimental period of existence which would need to be extended by authority, and wasn't. So even though the suppression was completely contrary to natural justice and canon law, no suppression was actually needed for the organisation to cease to exist canonically.

Now, what authority do the superiors have? Well, at least that which the superiors of any association of common life have, in or out of the Church, which is essentially that of the father of a family. That is, if the Fraternity is a private organisation, and the members share a common life, then the members have obviously granted voluntarily their submission to the head, and he therefore has extensive authority, limited only by the natural law. They simply have to obey him, or leave, which since they do not make solemn vows, they are free to do any time.

I'm certainly no expert on these matters, but I know enough to see that virtually every word said about it on Ignis Ardens is complete nonsense, by the way. Bishop Williamson certainly had to obey Bishop Fellay's instructions, and his only choice if he refused to do so was to leave.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:24 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

John Lane wrote:

Some of Bishop Williamson's public letters when he was in the USA were clearly political documents aimed across the pond. That was ten years ago or more. I commented on that at the time, it was manifest. The central theme was that the Fraternity was not divinely guaranteed to stay the course, and if and when it failed, it would be time to abandon it. If he was saying this publicly, you can easily imagine the conversations he was having privately. Whether one takes his side or not on that point, it remains a fact that he was saying, "My way or the highway."

Yes, I heard the same thing, yet I didn't then and don't now understand it the way you do. There is a big problem with allowing people (especially young people) to even think the Fraternity is divinely guaranteed to do anything, because when they fail, and they have failed in many cases, people have their confidence destroyed not only in the Fraternity, but the Church. The message I got from the confirmation talk I heard was not "my way or the highway," but something more like don't be discouraged if there are failures, the Fraternity is not the Church.

Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:51 am

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Robert, that's a reasonable notion in the abstract, but frankly, nobody, no matter how devoted to the Fraternity their parents were, has ever displayed the problem this is ostensibly meant to combat. That is, nobody has ever heard of the idea that the Fraternity is infallible or indefectible.

In any organisation, unity and the expression of unity, are paramount. Any leader expressing the ideas that Bishop Williamson was expressing would be seen as calculatingly attacking the unity of the organisation. I saw it that way when I was new the Fraternity, or perhaps even before we had Fraternity priests serving our chapel (I'd need to check the dates). And remember, I was hardly devoted to the Fraternity myself at the time. I was completely comfortable with the idea of the Fraternity breaking up.

Imagine if Fr. Cekada started sending out letters like that about Bishop Dolan. I don't think anybody would think it were a normal expression of fundamental truth, of which the faithful need to be reminded. I think they would rightly divine a nascent split between Cekada and Dolan. Likewise if Fr. Puskorius began putting out such comments about the CMRI. I'm giving these impossible examples in order to bring home just how startling Bishop Williamson's letters were at the time.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:33 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

John Lane wrote:

Robert, that's a reasonable notion in the abstract, but frankly, nobody, no matter how devoted to the Fraternity their parents were, has ever displayed the problem this is ostensibly meant to combat. That is, nobody has ever heard of the idea that the Fraternity is infallible or indefectible.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they think the Fraternity is not only providing the Sacraments, but they are the authority. No, the Fraternity does not explicitly claim this type of authority, but they allow people to believe it. Other trad groups have the same problem.

Quote:

In any organisation, unity and the expression of unity, are paramount. Any leader expressing the ideas that Bishop Williamson was expressing would be seen as calculatingly attacking the unity of the organisation.

Agreed, but within some limits, right? And yes, it would be seen that way, but there might be a reason other than the worst possible interpretation.

Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:00 pm

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Robert Bastaja wrote:

Quote:

In any organisation, unity and the expression of unity, are paramount. Any leader expressing the ideas that Bishop Williamson was expressing would be seen as calculatingly attacking the unity of the organisation.

Agreed, but within some limits, right? And yes, it would be seen that way, but there might be a reason other than the worst possible interpretation.

Yes, within the limits of divine law. We must obey God rather than men - when and only when there is a conflict between obligations.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:36 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Is an agreement with Rome a transgression of the Divine Law? If not, how would anybody ever oppose such an agreement without sinning in the process?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:16 pm

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Robert Bastaja wrote:

Is an agreement with Rome a transgression of the Divine Law?

Surely it depends upon what's in the "agreement"?

Robert Bastaja wrote:

If not, how would anybody ever oppose such an agreement without sinning in the process?

It depends on the means employed. Bishop Tissier opposed and opposes a deal, vigorously. Is there anything in his actions that is arguably sinful?

But you might notice, that these very good questions are the kind of precise points not touched upon by those who do not concern themselves over the morality of means, when the end is desired.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:18 am

Phillipus Iacobus

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 amPosts: 55Location: California, USA

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

John, Robert, et al.

Is not the statement "Rome will lose the Faith" problematic, since the See of Rome is indefectible and will always have the Faith?

Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:14 am

John Lane

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4335

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

"Rome" in this statement refers to the city of Rome, not the See, which is indeed indefectible.

What is fascinating is this entire section of the interview (actually somewhere near half of it), which appears to reveal a man who has been struggling against the temptation to sedevacantism.

Quote:

Our response to the present situation of the Church

And it can also be said that this is our response to the situation today in the Church: it is this attachment to what the Church has always believed, done and taught. With this we are certain that we cannot at any moment be outside the Church. But, of course, that puts us in an unlikely position because we are obliged to point a finger at the one who is judged by no one. The Holy See is judged by no one, which is also a principle that we adopt as our own. This is an unlikely situation that the good Lord permits. A situation that we wish we could say was impossible, but that the facts oblige us to recognize as reality.

This makes me think of La Salette, of those terribly violent statements: “Rome will lose the faith. There will be an eclipse of the Church. She will become the seat of the anti-Christ.” That is spine-chilling. “So you are saying that Benedict XVI is the anti-Christ?” No! I did not say that, that is wrong. It is much less precise than that. It is a worldwide situation; you see that it is obvious that there are some people even in Rome who have lost the faith, and you even hear this from the mouths of cardinals. And so I heard it quite recently from a retired cardinal, who said this at a family gathering: “You cannot know how happy I am to have left Rome and to be here, because in Rome the devil is in charge.” Rome is ruled by the devil. And it is a cardinal who is saying that today!

And we ask ourselves the question: tomorrow, then, what will become of the Society?

Fr. Lorans: That is the question that I was going to ask you.

Bishop Fellay: Do we just leave, do we just get off the boat? I reply: no, out of the question! The Catholic Church is our Church. We do not have another one. There is no other one. The good Lord permits her to be ill. Well, then! She is ill. And we try not to catch the illness ourselves, but we are not going to start saying that we are making another Church. There is no other one. This is one of the most difficult trials that God in His goodness can permit. You get to a point where you are not very far from the trial of Abraham, in other words, you have to hope against hope, against all the facts that one learns from experience. You end up telling yourself: “But no, that just cannot be; that cannot be the pope,” or else, “that cannot be the Church.” But we have to stand our ground by saying: “The illness is the sickness, but the illness is not the Church.” It is in the Church, but the Church remains the Church. When you have a Mister So-and-so who is sick, who has cancer throughout his body, this gentleman remains Mr. So-and-so, even though he is ill. And you do not agree with the ailment. If this gentleman is your father, he remains your father, even if he is ill. The Church is our mother, she is ill, but she remains our mother. We are not going to turn away our mother. No! Of course, we must fight against the illness. But this Church here is indeed the Church founded by Our Lord. She it is indeed who has the promises of eternal life. She it is indeed who has the promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. The problem is that people thought that it could not go as far as this, but plainly we have reached that point.

The Church is still our mother, even if she is ill

In other word, we preserve it all: we preserve the whole faith, including adherence to the principle of the successor of Peter; there really is a successor of Peter until the end of the world. This is one of the canons of Vatican I. There will be a successor of Peter to the end. It doesn’t say whether he will be good or bad, whether everything will go well or badly, but there will be a pope, that’s all. And that is enough. The good Lord will work, will make His grace and the faith pass through this instrument, even if it is weakened for a moment. This is the moment in which we are living today; it is not easy but we must not lose the faith over it. We must ask God for faith. I realize that this is not easy.

There are many easy solutions, but we see from the consequences that they are not viable solutions. For instance, rejecting everything, saying that there is no longer a pope, or even that the Church no longer exists. Well, then, are we the ones who are going to invent our own, in the middle of the twenty-first century? Not on your life! That is doomed to failure since we are the ones taking the initiative. No, God in His goodness was the one who founded it and who is permitting this terrible trial.

I spoke about La Salette, but I could very well speak about Leo XIII. When this pope composed the exorcism that bears his name, he also said that the devil would establish his headquarters in Rome. They say that the origin of this exorcism—I have never really been able to verify this—was an auditory revelation in which he allegedly heard Our Lord speaking with the devil. The devil supposedly said: “Give me a hundred years and I will manage to defeat your Church.” And Our Lord supposedly said: “Yes.” It would be interesting to verify this. The fact remains that Leo XIII composed this exorcism in which he spoke very plainly and very clearly about this disastrous influence of the devil on Rome.

And it is well known that there is the question of the anti-Christ. One day he will arrive. Is that day today? I will not get into this debate; I am not the one who will tell you whether he is here. I know nothing about it. Will he arrive after or before the triumph of the Blessed Virgin that was announced at Fatima? I know nothing about it. Some say yes, some say no. We will surely see, and what advantage would it be [to have an answer]? Not much.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:45 pm

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Bishop Fellay - "Rome will lose the faith..."

Quote:

If this gentleman is your father, he remains your father, even if he is ill.

I never bought that argument, even as a kid... "Once your father, always your father." Best sedeplenist argument you will ever hear from grandma . It is simply so wrong on so many levels, never mind the fact that your father is biological, which means no matter what he will never cease being your father. While the Pope is only your Father during a set of time, it is an office with the current discipline saying that he has to be elected by Cardinals. So the Pope is not always going to be your father, he can lose his office through becoming habitually insane, heresy, resignation. Just imagine your father at age 3 sending you a letter of resignation, "I cease being your father." How silly would that be ? Apparently this is the most common argument I have ever heard, and now I know why! Go +Fellay! The reason why I was sedeplenist for a long time, was simply because I had to go read for myself the massive misquoting that the SSPX did to many good theologians, butchering them completely.

I believed it was perfectly licit to resist the moral/doctrinal teaching of a Supreme Pontiff when in reality what they were talking about was resisting evil commands, i.e. sinful commands. Unfortunately none of the claimants have asked me to go fornicate with someone or go to war with France, so what is it that they are really resisting? Their doctrines... This is what becomes troublesome, but the clarity that Bergoglio has brought. O Blessed clarity!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum